L125-2014/03/27-p.

1
CIV PRO Mar. 27, 2014
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 66
QUO WARRANTO

Venue:
o General rule: SC, CA, or RTC (with territorial jurisdiction over residence of
defendant)
o If by Sol Gen: SC, CA, or RTC of Manila
o If by Private Person (Relator): Same with general rule
VAA: Court has a lot of leewayit can require evidence, hold a hearing
o Bottom-line: prioritized and summary
o VAA: This Rule is the most flexible
Rules intend Quo Warranto to be expedient
o Short prescriptive period: 1 year from cause
o Damages may be waived and may be litigated in a separate action
o But action for damages must be brought also within 1 year from entry of
judgment showing the petitioners right to the office
Reliefs
1. Ouster
2. Delivery
3. Damages
Does this apply to appointive officials? Yes
Does this apply to elective officials? Yes, but only Sol Gen may bring (since in an
elective position, the second placer cannot be a relator because he is not entitled
to the position)

RULE 67
EXPROPRIATION

Covers both real and personal property

VAA: There is such a thing as de facto expropriation: the property itself is not
sought to be expropriated, but the property is effectively situated.
As a complaint, does this have to contain CNFS? No (Why? Verified already)
Who may exercise?
o VAA: Government only, since eminent domain is power of the state
Just compensation = expropriation value of the price + compensation for
damages
o See 6 for computation
o Different with propriety of expropriation
Failure to file an answer does not result in default ( 11)
o Even on appeal, (1) evidence can be presented on just compensation; (2)
respondent does not lose his right to share in the just compensation
Order of the court
o Final order of expropriation
o May be appealed (with record of appeal)
Forecloses the issue of propriety

L125-2014/03/27-p. 2
But even on appeal, does not preclude court a quo from continuing
proceedings with respect to just compensation
o Appointment of Commissioners ( 5, 7, 8)
VAA: They do conduct trial, but not in the perfect sense; the
essence of their work is the same (i.e. fact finding)
Special Rule on conflicting claims
o Award will be paid to the court;
o Court will adjudge ownership in the same case (?);
o In any event, (1) before entry plaintiff must pay the sum, or (2) retain it if
there was already entry
o Refusal of respondent to accept will delay expropriation since petitioner
can pay the amount to the court, and it will have the effect of payment.

Cases
Bardillon v. Brgy. Masili: Jurisdiction of expropriation with RTC since it is governments
exercise of eminent domain, therefore incapable of pecuniary estimation. (Why? Just
compensation is only the second issue, the first issue being the right of the
government to expropriate.)
NPC v. Gutierrez: Deprivation of beneficial use (NTC asked for road right of way [i.e. jus
utendi], but Court said that because the respondent is deprived of beneficial use, it is in
effect an expropriation).
Mactan Cebu v. Lozada: Read this case
Napocor v. Zabala: Determination of just compensation is a judicial power. Law which
purports to dictate how just compensation is computed is null and void. (Why? Just
compensation is in the Constitution, therefore it is the province of the judiciary to
interpret it and determine what is just)
Court cannot rely on commissioners report if it was unsupported by
documentary evidence.
Republic v. Heirs of Bautista: Findings of fact (on expropriation case) of two lower courts
are binding on the Supreme Court.
Sec. v. Tecson: Twin rationale: (1) Value govt pays only is what the respondent lost; the
government therefore should pay what the respondent lost at the time of taking. (2) Just
compensation has an element of equity, which is not only for the respondent but also
for the public (which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation).
VAA: Compare with Heirs of Tria and American Rubber, which are agrarian reform cases,
where the court awarded just compensation based on the time of payment (applying
the formula in the CARPER)
VAA: Agrarian reform is police power, since it redistributes land to stabilize
society. Its the tenant farmers who pay (reason for distinctions in computation of
just compensation).
RULE 68
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

L125-2014/03/27-p. 3

Encumbrance: Anything that burdens the property (e.g. mortgage, antichresis,

lease, usufruct)
o Recall: Will follow the property wherever it goes
o Only difference is usufruct/lease is not foreclosed; only REM and
antichresis; whythere is nothing to be fulfilled
Order of foreclosure: sets equity of redemption
Order of confirmation: order confirming the sale; effects
o Vests title in purchaser
o Divests title from mortgagor
Payment of proceeds
o Plaintiff
o Balance, if any, to junior encumbrancer
o Balance, if any, to debtor

Rosales v. Alfonso: There is no right of redemption in judicial foreclosure under Rule 68.
(But case extends equity of redemption to at any time before the confirmation of the
sale. [VAA: Para que pa ang 90-120 days?])
RULE 69
PARTITION

12

Any person holding property jointly or in-common with others, i.e. co-owners
o Under the Civil Code, a co-owner always has the right to compel partition
Apply to personal ( 13) and real property.
Q: Will a judgment of partition be valid if it is made without one of the
co-owners?
A: No. They are indispensable parties. All must be impleaded.
Procedural basis: 12 [also indicated that 1 is directory]
In order to succeed in the action, plaintiff must show nature and extent of
his right to the property.
Venue: apply Rule 4
If the parties do not agree, Court cannot compel partition of the property. It
will sell and divide the proceeds. The sale must be confirmed, and the effect
is to clear it of all the claims of the parties to the action. ( 12)
Accounting for profits: Party can recover his just share.
Incompetent in rule has to be judicially declared (same as in Rule 67)
Without prejudice: The judgment does not have to be annulled; left-out co-owner
may file an action for recovery (accion reinvindicatoria)
See also paramount rights (e.g. an heir cannot be deprived of his inheritance)

RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY & UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Forcible entry: physical possession ousted by force, intimidation, threats,

strategy, stealth (FITSS)
Unlawful detainer: there is a person who lawfully possesses property not his,
and his right expires or is terminated (may be by law)

L125-2014/03/27-p. 4
There is demand to pay and vacate (within 15 days if land, 5 days if
building)
Upon expiration of the 15 days or 5 days, plaintiff has one (1) year
to file the FE/UD case (i.e. counted from the 16th or 6th day after the
demand)
o Only from demand does the possession become unlawful;
These elements are jurisdictional (Lacap v. Lee), since without these
allegations, the court would not be able to determine whether or not it has
subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Only counter-claim, cross-claim allowed. (See list of prohibited pleadings in
13)
Only conciliation is the condition precedent that is respected.
Requirements for affidavits
Defense of ownership B.P. 129, 33
From MTC to RTC, Appeal is possible under Rule 40;
o Stay of judgment if defendant files supersedeas bond
o Deposit of rentals and reasonable compensation of the use
o

Cases
Santos v. NSO: Supervening event
Macasaet v. Macasaet: Grace and tolerance of parents came to an end, but
children did not vacate. Court held that mere fact that toleration ended meant
the children had no more rights to the property. (VAA: Case of possession being
donated)
Laurora v. Sterling: An owner cannot use force to evict the de facto possessor;
remedy is to file an action in court.
Benitez v. CA: Prior possession is not a condition sine qua non for an unlawful
detainer case. Rents different from damages (for use of land).
Villondo v. Quijano: Issue in forcible entry is only physical possession, not legal
possession. No point in arguing on the nature of possession.
Jakihaca v. Aquino: On appeal, Rule 40; no longer summary
RULE 70
CONTEMPT

Civil contempt
Two ways of committing: (1) direct or (2) indirect
Direct c]]]ontemplates a session, so as to stop or interrupt a proceeding
Remedy for direct contempt: certiorari or prohibition; no appeal, no
Remedy for indirect contempt: appeal (like a criminal appeal)
See People v. Gacott

Grounds for Indirect Contempt

Officer of the court Only with respect to a pending case
Unlawful interference Broad, akin to obstruction of justice (but is not the
same since the latter is criminal)
Contempt against QJA
Jurisdiction with RTC having jurisdiction over the territory where the QJA is
located.

L125-2014/03/27-p. 5

Indirect (if its direct, it is the body itself that cites)

Landbank v. Listana: While a QJA may have contempt powers, it does not mean that
they themselves can cite in contempt.